NOTE: DA* 60-250 thread pulled

[spyglass]

Originally Posted by Blue

What the hell are you ranting about? I use the FA 50mm f1.4 because its AF and if I need to I CAN manual focus it. Granted, its not the ideal focus ring. If I want a manual focus, I whip out the smc M 50mm f1.4. I challenge you to show me a lens that can out perform it for less than $200, especially one with AF capability. It is more likely to be > $500 to be in its league.

Hey Blue who rattled your chain? I don't even know what your point is. You use the FA 50 f1.4 because it is auto focus, admit the sorry excuse for a focus ring is crap, and then sum up by saying that you would turn to a separate non auto focus older manual lens if you wanted to focus manually. Would not the new DA 55mm lens that I originally mentioned serve both needs, focus faster and quieter?
I do not want to get in a pissing contest over this. The present FA 50 is a cheaper lens with limitations. Progress and demand is creating its replacement. It will cost more, but you get what you pay for.

[ogl]

Nobody have any interest to such information that DA*60-250/4 is FF lens.
Funny...

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

Originally Posted by ogl

New DA*60-250/4 is FF lens.
Tested on Z-1. No any problems at all.

Over the whole focal length range?!

[jsherman999]

Originally Posted by spyglass

Hey Blue who rattled your chain? I don't even know what your point is. You use the FA 50 f1.4 because it is auto focus, admit the sorry excuse for a focus ring is crap, and then sum up by saying that you would turn to a separate non auto focus older manual lens if you wanted to focus manually. Would not the new DA 55mm lens that I originally mentioned serve both needs, focus faster and quieter?
I do not want to get in a pissing contest over this. The present FA 50 is a cheaper lens with limitations. Progress and demand is creating its replacement. It will cost more, but you get what you pay for.

I can manually focus the FA 50 1.4 just fine with it's 'limited' focus ring.

I'd say that the FA 50 1.4 is an exceptional lens, and not just 'for the price', and I really suspect that the improvements coming with the DA* 55 may sadly be marginal.

I'd have no hesitation recommending the FA 50 to anyone - we'll have to wait to see if the new 55 is worth $50 more than the FA 50, much less $500 more.


.

[ogl]

Originally Posted by Douglas_of_Sweden

Over the whole focal length range?!

No any vignetting on whole focal lenght.

[egordon99]

spyglass -
1)If the 60-250 was f/2.8, it would be ALOT more expensive (possibly close to $3K) and quite a bit larger.
2)There is NOTHING wrong with the FA 50mm f/1.4. It may be a little soft wide open, but it's still a great piece of glass that (gasps!) has the manual focus "feature"

Although I hope your (misguided) rant made you feel better

[Wheatfield]

Originally Posted by spyglass

Let's see... the 50mm 1.4 does not have a real manual focus ring (if you can call the narrow ring a real user adjustment I take my hat off to you), and the pentax support people that I have talked to admit that the lens was a quick cheap solution to create a faster 50mm lens to keep the market happy until they determined what sales potential there would be for a fast 50. Hell ,we can all hammer in nails with a rock..... but we are smart enough to recognoze a hammer when we see it. The new lens will put the old lens to shame, not even in the same league.

The FA50/1.4 has a less than ideal manual focus ring, much like many other lenses I have seen that it is contemporaneous with, but less than ideal is not the same as not having one at all which is what you initially inferred.
The lens has been in production since 1991, so I really doubt your comment about the Pentax support people has any truth to it at all. The fact is, the lens has been around long enough that long term production values have kicked in and it is an inexpensive lens to make.
If you look at the lens line from 17 years ago, you will find the FA50/1.4 looks pretty much the same as any other Pentax lens from the era.
I'm sure the new lens will be a better one on several levels, whether it puts the FA to shame from a performance perspective is doubtful, the FA is a very good optic. I expect the one place the new lens will put the old one to shame is price. I doubt very much that the new lens will have 3-4 times better performance, but I am sure it will be that much more expensive.

[m8o]

Originally Posted by ogl

New DA*60-250/4 is FF lens.
Tested on Z-1. No any problems at all.

Errr... I must have missed that post. Who tested it & when & how (& how did they get it)?

[KungPOW]

Originally Posted by ogl

New DA*60-250/4 is FF lens.
Tested on Z-1. No any problems at all.

Ok, it's interesting that Pentax has a full frame (135 format) zoom...

But Photokina seems to have killed any and all rumors of a 135 format DSLR. And to counter that, the rumors of the 645D are again active.

A 60-250mm range does sound more like a FF lens. And you have confirmed it works FF. So where is the camera it "belongs" to? If this is the start of a FF range of new Pentax glass, can we expect to see a 28-70 soon?

As for the DA*55, is it a full frame lens? Would it have been cheaper to make as a crop sensor lens?

Any chance these lenses have an image circle large enough to work with a full frame camera's shake reduction?

Could this also explain why there is a DA*30 on the road map? It too might have a large image circle to work with FF shake reduction, were as the FA31 ltd does not?

But is this enough to restart the FF rumors? I doubt it. I see Pentax as a company that is trying to decide what direction to go. The impresion I am left with after Pentax's showing at Photokina, is that either this company has little commitment to long term goals, or it has little skill at comunicating these goals to the buying public. What message do you get from a company that introduces an entry level camera, that is expected to be the least expensive in its class, right beside a zoom lens and a fast fifty that appear to be the most expensive in their class?

______________________


There is nothing wrong with the focus ring on the FA50. The lens is an autofocus lens first, with the ability to manually focus second. The focus ring is easy to feel on the lens, it is enough to do the job. It is actually so light that it can be used with one finger. To call the lens a rock trying to do a hammers job is a misleading exageration.

[Torphoto]

Pentax has openly said that they have not discounted FF or MF, but that they are still working on apS-C and think they can match FF with it. So this leaves us with one, possible 2 or 3 new lenses that cover FF, covering FF just means that they are open to the Idea of FF in the future and down want to be stuck with alot of lenses that will not cover it.

Also if I am right they are most likely working on 1.3 crop sensors ( or similar ) that will work with exissting aps-c croped sensors and will be cheaper than FF but better than aps-C.

As for the Price of the 60-250 and new 55mm, if sigma can sell their new 50mm F1.4 for $450 and new sony 70-200 f2.8 are $1700 Pentax has actually priced the lenses correctly IF the IQ is up there, if the IQ isn't there then we can complain.

[spyglass]

Originally Posted by Wheatfield

The FA50/1.4 has a less than ideal manual focus ring, much like many other lenses I have seen that it is contemporaneous with, but less than ideal is not the same as not having one at all which is what you initially inferred.
The lens has been in production since 1991, so I really doubt your comment about the Pentax support people has any truth to it at all. The fact is, the lens has been around long enough that long term production values have kicked in and it is an inexpensive lens to make.
If you look at the lens line from 17 years ago, you will find the FA50/1.4 looks pretty much the same as any other Pentax lens from the era.
I'm sure the new lens will be a better one on several levels, whether it puts the FA to shame from a performance perspective is doubtful, the FA is a very good optic. I expect the one place the new lens will put the old one to shame is price. I doubt very much that the new lens will have 3-4 times better performance, but I am sure it will be that much more expensive.

Wheatfield I do take offence to your suggestion that my reference to the Pentax support people has no truth to it. The 90's were not a spectacular era for SLR lines. The fully automatic compact point and shoot cameras were eating heavily into the market and it had a big impact on the SLR world. Most manufactures had to create fully automatic solutions on a ridiculous budget to deal with market trends. The FA 50 is just one example of “cost effective” lens of that period. The support people I talked with said "we drastically need to address our lens situation as it is lagging behind the competition and will be a problem impacting consumer confidence and future sales, the FA50 was a cheap solution that solved a short term problem but falls short of the mark"
Time has rolled on and the digital era has increased interest in cameras overall. Consumers (myself included) ask for better lenses. You may wish to cling onto a 17 year old “cost effective solution” lens but many of us want to see new improved lenses made available to the market. If a FA50 sells for $200 would I be will to pay another $300 for faster quieter focusing, and a real manual focus adjust ring ? The answer is yes. Just check out our own market place section. It seems every week we have Pentax users dumping all their gear. A lot of them say that lack of good glass is a major reason for their decision. (look on the bright side Wheatfield, in about 17 years from now you can dig through a pawn shop or find our table scraps on Ebay)

[m8o]

Torphoto, don't play into anyone's FF game. All the suppositions are pointless & little more than mental masturbation. Many a decent thread on this forum has digressed to this annoying reciprocating exchange of words. It may indeed come. I care little. I care less for seeing it mentioned and thread digress into discussing little more than that in 1/2 the threads that are active. To those constantly talking about it, it's been said enough. I could digress into a rant about being sick about hearing about it. I'll stop now as it's close to that already. I know I asked about details/proof... sorry I did. Please ignore.

[Wheatfield]

Originally Posted by spyglass

Wheatfield I do take offence to your suggestion that my reference to the Pentax support people has no truth to it. The 90's were not a spectacular era for SLR lines. The fully automatic compact point and shoot cameras were eating heavily into the market and it had a big impact on the SLR world. Most manufactures had to create fully automatic solutions on a ridiculous budget to deal with market trends. The FA 50 is just one example of “cost effective” lens of that period. The support people I talked with said "we drastically need to address our lens situation as it is lagging behind the competition and will be a problem impacting consumer confidence and future sales, the FA50 was a cheap solution that solved a short term problem but falls short of the mark"
Time has rolled on and the digital era has increased interest in cameras overall. Consumers (myself included) ask for better lenses. You may wish to cling onto a 17 year old “cost effective solution” lens but many of us want to see new improved lenses made available to the market. If a FA50 sells for $200 would I be will to pay another $300 for faster quieter focusing, and a real manual focus adjust ring ? The answer is yes. Just check out our own market place section. It seems every week we have Pentax users dumping all their gear. A lot of them say that lack of good glass is a major reason for their decision. (look on the bright side Wheatfield, in about 17 years from now you can dig through a pawn shop or find our table scraps on Ebay)

Take as much offense as you like, if you don't want to be offended, stop writing posts that are ill thought out and backhanded insulting. I was selling Pentax 17 years ago, I know what the company was saying.

I presume you are saying that the entire lens line from that era was a cheap solution, as the entire FA line from that era shared the same or similar cosmetic construction.

What is offensive is your presumption that A) new and improved is always better (I have enough bad CA results from my 21mm LTD to put that idea to rest), that I am somehow clinging to old technology for any reason (I buy what works for me, and I don't care what era it comes from).

If the 55/1.4 turns out to be a good lens, and it is enough better than what I am presently using for an AF 50, I'll buy it. If it turns out to be no better or only marginally better than what I am using now, I won't buy it.
I will make that decision when the lens is actually in production and I can get my hands in one for comparative purposes.
What I won't do is blindly take out my debit card and buy a new lens simply because it is pushed at me as the latest and greatest.
I'm not seeing this as a hard concept to get my head around, what's your problem with understanding this?

[spyglass]

Originally Posted by Wheatfield

Take as much offense as you like, if you don't want to be offended, stop writing posts that are ill thought out and backhanded insulting. I was selling Pentax 17 years ago, I know what the company was saying.


If the 55/1.4 turns out to be a good lens, and it is enough better than what I am presently using for an AF 50, I'll buy it. If it turns out to be no better or only marginally better than what I am using now, I won't buy it.
I will make that decision when the lens is actually in production and I can get my hands in one for comparative purposes.
What I won't do is blindly take out my debit card and buy a new lens simply because it is pushed at me as the latest and greatest.
I'm not seeing this as a hard concept to get my head around, what's your problem with understanding this?

Wheatfield is your life so pathetic that you feel you must get involved with this discussion on a personally level. Ok, lets sink to that level. If you love the FA 50 (without the supersonic focus motor, and decent manual focus ring), great, have a nice life. I am glad that the 17 year old technology is meeting your needs. But if it is a case where you are just too stuck in your past glory years as a “camera salesman” 17 years ago (did that job come with a cape and a high horse.... no probably a blind fold - that you forgot to take off), and the FA 50 was the first and last thing that increased your heartbeat, perhaps someone should lead you out to pasture (as it is highly questionable that you could see or find it or anything new).
Nobody asked you to take your wallet out and buy any lens. I am guessing that your day is done and that you are too old to learn any new tricks or any new lenses. What would be nice is the opportunity to have a selection of new lenses, encouraged by the competition and user needs, that gives users the choice to consider buying or not buying. The new DA55 may be a dud or it may be a home run hit, time will tell. Many would like to see something that is not 17 years old in design hit the counter. I welcome all new development. It gives users the chance to research and purchase as their needs dictate. Thank God we do not have you at the helm of Pentax or we would be stuck in the past with a firm resolution to never move forward. Reasonable glass is going to start at the $500 mark and travel up from there. Pentax or any other manufacture can not afford to develop or sell it for less. I want a strong Pentax that will be around for many years to come. I will continue to place demands on them as a consumer and ask them to build and develop new leading edge products, and I will support them in turn with my purchases.
I know this has all been very taxing for you Wheatfield, so go get a nice warm cup of Ovaltine, saddle up with a pair of Depends, and wander up to bed.

[Wheatfield]

Evidently simple concepts are beyond your grasp.
Carry on.